President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) statement on China’s highly restrictive conditions on the nomination of candidates for the first direct election of Hong Kong’s chief executive in 2017 would be mere lip service if he does not follow up with actions and press China to respect the overwhelming desire of Hong Kongers to have a genuine democratic election.
Ma, who also serves as Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairman, made the statement at the weekly KMT meeting on Tuesday, saying that democracy and rule of law are core values and long-term goals in Hong Kong, while Taiwanese from all walks of life are concerned about and supportive of Hong Kongers’ continuous efforts to strive for universal suffrage.
He urged Beijing to exercise wisdom, tolerate different views and search for consensus through peaceful means to come up with a positive response to the public appeal and stand by its promises to Hong Kong.
While noting the protests of Hong Kong activists and the voices of support in Taiwan, Ma’s words were simply platitudes, which Beijing will not heed.
The limits China sets on the election, to effectively veto candidates it deems undesirable, sends Taiwan the message that Beijing will not allow democracy to prevail in its territory and that autonomy given to its people is a privilege that can be revoked at any time.
With this understanding, Ma should have delivered the statement in his presidential capacity and condemned China over its decision.
The strongest term the Ma administration has used against China for reneging on its promises was “regret,” as the Mainland Affairs Council said in a statement issued on the same day the Chinese National People’s Congress Standing Committee made the decision on Hong Kong.
However, another statement issued by the council that day to “congratulate” Macau’s re-elected Chief Executive Fernando Chui (崔世安) cast doubt on whether the Ma administration was serious about the demands raised by people not only in Hong Kong, but also in Macau, to implement universal suffrage.
It is unlikely that the Ma administration — set to pick up the pace on advancing cross-strait relations beyond economic issues to reach the phase where both sides would begin political dialogue, known as the “deep-water zone” — will review its cross-strait agenda because of the situation in Hong Kong.
Ma’s determination to proceed with his cross-strait agenda before his second and final term expires has been undeterred. Even the actions of former Mainland Affairs Council deputy minister Chang Hsien-yao (張顯耀) — a top cross-strait negotiator accused of having leaked classified information to China — were characterized by Ma as merely a “ripple in the strong wave of cross-strait developments” that would not affect cross-strait negotiations.
Ma has been utterly dismissive of public concerns that cross-strait agreements reached by his administration might leave the nation in turmoil akin to that now present in Hong Kong. He said during an interview with the Chinese-language biweekly Wealth Magazine in June that the “one country, two systems” model in Hong Kong is irrelevant to Taiwan, whatever the results may be.
The response of the Ma administration in relation to the deprivation of Hong Kongers’ rights to democracy has been grossly inadequate. The principle that China will not tolerate outside interference in its internal affairs, as seen in the case of the 2017 Hong Kong chief executive election fiasco, is to be somewhat expected. However, by failing to respond appropriately in support of a nation’s right to democracy sends a clear message to China and leaves Taiwan more vulnerable to the same principle.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS